For $40, those who couldn't be astronauts see Mars One as their chance.

Aaron Hamm, an assistant hotel engineer who deals with HVAC, cooling systems, and maintenance, lacks the traditional qualifications to be an astronaut. But that doesn't mean he wants to stay on Earth. "I felt… I was discouraged as a child [from becoming an astronaut] just because of how unbelievably competitive it is,” Hamm told Ars. “I’m a very intelligent person and I’m driven to try and achieve my dreams but, at the same time, I felt like it was an really unrealistic goal to try and pursue. As smart as I am, there's always plenty of people that are smarter.”

Hamm, an Ars forum user by the name of Quisquis, has just applied for the private Mars One colony program. For him, a large part of the appeal is that the program seeks a different type of astronaut.

Aaron Hamm, would-be Mars colonist.

“I think that the Mars One mission and the idea of going somewhere that you're not coming back from for life… that's different than the general astronaut program,” he said. Hamm also emphasized his own pioneer spirit, which he will need if accepted—there’s no return journey planned for Mars One colonists.

A new horizon

Mars One is a private space mission that hopes to send a group of people to Mars in a decade and leave them there to foster the first human colony. It has received endorsement and support from the likes of Gerard ’t Hooft, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. But it has also been criticized on several counts, including treating a serious life-threatening scenario as a reality show for the purposes of monetization and seeking funding while being glib about nearly all the practical details.

Before applicants even get to see the application, they must pay an application fee of around $38 USD (the price varies depending on country of residence). They fill out a public-facing profile and answer several private questions about achievements and awards, incidents that have frightened or stressed them out and how they dealt with them, personality types they find difficult to handle, and how they deal with cultures other than their own. To date, 30,000 other Red Planet hopefuls have applied.

“I want to see the sun rise over a completely new horizon, in a completely new sky. I think that's worth any price,” wrote Erica Meszaros, another Mars One applicant, in her personal essay.

Meszaros is a software developer by trade and interned with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab. She states that astronauts are traditionally chosen “from the Air Force” or—more recently, with the success of $200,000 per flight projects like Virgin Galactic—from “those with deep pockets.”

Part of Mars One’s pitch has been that much of the technology for traveling to and maintaining residence on Mars already exists; it’s just a matter of marshaling resources and initiative to get there. Both Hamm and Meszaros echoed this sentiment. Despite being publicly vague on the details, Mars One leaders maintain that they know the cost of the mission ($6 billion) and that it can all be assembled and launched in 10 years.

All applicants make a video as part of their public facing profile discussing, in brief, why they want to or are suited for a mission to Mars. "I have a great sense of humor, so I really get along with everybody," said Francisco, a 32 year-old Argentinian man who works in "the commercial area at a plastic containers factory."

"I’ve got a feeling that I don’t belong here, but out there,” said Anders, a 51-year-old Swedish man who has the most popular profile on the site. “What makes me the perfect candidate? Well, I’m single. I’m flexible."

"I believe that the challenge that I’m putting up with everybody… If anybody can challenge me with the knowledge and all the things that I can do, then I give up, but if not, I would like to be the first one to go,” said Vasile Sofroni, a 54-year-old Romanian man with the second most popular profile.

The technical viability of the project has been repeatedly called into question, though detailed critiques are hard to come by because the project is so vague (the New York Timessummed up the general feeling in a recent article that talked about the "significant skepticism" that Mars One "has raised in some quarters").

Critics also criticized Mars One for its attempt to turn the trip into an extravagant and potentially dangerous reality TV show. The first round of the application process allows people to vote on applicants based on their public profiles to push them through to the next qualifying round (though there is not, per the current design, any public involvement going forward).

Erica Meszaros, another would-be Mars colonist.

But neither Hamm nor Meszaros see themselves as fame seekers. “I don’t, right now, have a strategy for progressing, other than trying to get across my passion… for this endeavor,” Meszaros told me. Hamm said that he has been pushing his application and name out on sites like Facebook (“my friends are already a little tired of it”) but notes he has “never applied to another reality show.”

Worth the risk

By now, Mars One has proven that there are sufficient number of people who don't need to know any technical details for about the potential chance to live on Mars. Tens of thousands have plunked down cash to throw their would-be astronaut helmets into the ring without needing virtually any concrete information.

But should space travel push come to reality entertainment shove, aren’t applicants at least a little afraid of—how to put this delicately—either a fiery space death or a frigid Martian death?

“The purpose that I would be pursuing is so much greater than myself,” Hamm said. “I think the benefit to humanity is overwhelming of those fears.”

Promoted Comments

I'm kind of curious what the public is expecting to see at this point... everyone panning the program seems to expect that they should be able to see blueprints and budgets or something.

Even if Mars One executes exactly as they plan to, no one who isn't intimately involved in the project is going to see that level of detail.

And I think everyone should take a moment to remember that 10 years before we landed on the Moon, we couldn't even launch a rocket into space...

That's a fair response, honestly. Ten years prior to Apollo 11's landing, NASA was a fledgling agency and Project Mercury was still a few months from officially kicking off.

The skepticism from a lot of folks is good old fashioned Internet truculence, yes. However, remember also that at its height, Project Apollo and its associated programs directly or indirectly employed about 400,000 people and consumed 2.2% of the total federal budget (one source, though there are many others). A lot of people are viewing Mars One's goals through that lens: if it took that many billions to get twelve people to the moon, how much more will it take to get to Mars?

Our perception of space travel is colored by past missions. Mars One's estimate of a $6B mission seems ludicrously low in light of what other government-funded space agencies across the world have spent to accomplish far smaller goals. Costs will be lower than a government-run mission for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the notoriously porky nature of manned space flight (that army of 400,000 civil servants and contractors spread across North America didn't come cheap), but $6B still seems a little light. Looking at their technology page, they anticipate saving huge amounts of capital by operating as payloads on Falcon Heavy launch vehicles (which should, if all goes according to plan, be man-rated by design) and by using Dragon capsules in a variety of roles. Good for them. This is obviously predicated on Falcon Heavy being brought into operation on time, and solving the issue of actually landing on Mars (there's no method so far that's been tried that'll work for living cargo, for one reason or another, at least not without serious compromises in payload). This means they still will need to finance multiple Falcon Heavy launches, multiple Dragon vehicles, and also at least one Mars Transit vehicle. Also, they'll need to design and manufacture environmental suits (nothing off the shelf will work for them, including anything in NASA's current inventory), rovers, and all the other things listed on that page.

There's another factor, too: with once exception, every human being who's walked on another world has been an extremely skilled pilot or naval aviator (and the one exception, Dr. Harrison Schmidt, was trained and rated on supersonic jets after his acceptance to the astronaut corps). This kind of background made them not just adept at flying planes and stuff, but also powerfully sharp observers and communicators, able to process lots of inputs simultaneously and make very fast and informed decisions in response to rapidly changing situations. Beyond being incredible pilots, most were also bloody brilliant--Buzz Aldrin, for example, holds a PhD from MIT in astronautics and his thesis, "Line of Sight Guidance Techniques for Manned Orbital Rendezvous," formed the groundwork for much of NASA's rendezvous procedures during Project Gemini. Every person we've sent to plant those flags and make those footprints has been ridiculously skilled people, trained by the absolute best methods that could be devised by a battery of brilliant experts using effectively unlimited funds.

And contrasting that, Mars One is holding a public lottery and wants to sell the TV rights to the training and mission. It doesn't conjure up images of bold exploration so much as it does broken dreams and farce.

Their plans for mission sustainability--and, I'll of course grant that I don't know anything other than what's been publicly released, so maybe they've got a workaround for this--are contingent on other suppliers to provide transport. Assuming they can vault the initial hurdle and actually set four souls down on Mars, those folks' survival depends on the very, very nascent commercial space industry to keep them from dying a slow death. Maybe that's what it'll take to accelerate commercial space into viability, but I think it's going to come back to that oldest, truest adage of space flight: no bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Maybe I'm having such a hard time with it because it seems fantastic and silly and in real life, fantastic silly plans usually meet harsh un-funny ends; maybe the mention of TV automatically poisons my entire picture of the project. Maybe I'm just a pessimistic ass with a dried-up soul and a hopelessly atrophied sense of wonder. I dunno. But I can't help but see Mars One held up in comparison to the space race; the US spent more than a hundred billion 1960s dollars to send the best to the moon, and now we're gonna canvas the internet for folks who want to go to Mars and make a TV show out of it.

This just seems like an impossible project, and not the good kind of impossible project that ends in the triumph of overcoming blah blah blah. If they even manage a single launch, I'll eat my hat.

Catastrophic system failure. The electrical, heating, O2 production, or Water production systems fail in a non-repairable manner.

With the exception of available redundant systems, this would result in a fairly swift death for all the colonists.

Gradient issues:

Food, water, or O2 intake is greater than production.

These are issues that can be solved in the planning stage, but if they're not, they can also be solved on site in a variety of manners (including one of the crew sacrificing themselves for the good of the mission). I've already determined that if someone needs to do that, and I decide that it's going to be me, I'm going to go find out what it smells like on Mars...

Less morbid solutions include diverting electricity from non critical systems to electrolysis (for o2 issues), to lighting over the plants (to increase photosynthesis & by extension food production), or to driving more soil into the melting unit to produce more water.

Pinhole air leaks:

Over time, it is possible that the hab develops leaks. With proper planning, they can be easily tracked down and repaired. For example, there could be sensors on the outside of the hab that detect greater than normal concentrations of O2 in the atmosphere. That would allow you to both detect small leaks, and locate their general position.

Sabotage by a psychologically unstable crew member:

This is again something that probably would cause the death of the entire crew if it occurred. However, with extensive testing prior to launch, I think that it would be possible to weed out the people most likely to not be able to handle the remote environment. Additionally, if the person is identified on mission before anything occurs, there may be medical remedies available.

Disease:

There is a possibility of contracting some disease that is not able to be treated on Mars due to the lower standard of medical care available. This could effect any number of the crew, and has the potential to be all over the place with regards to how it risks the success of the mission. The best that can be done for this is good medical training, common medicines being made available via supply shipments, and sterilization of as much as possible prior to launch.

All of these dangers are real, but with good planning and redundancy, none of them guarantee the failure of the mission.

What a great jdea!!! I think that I will plan a voyage to Saturn for the year2030 and I will charge people 39.95$ for the possibilty of maybe being chosen... hopefully 100 000 people will sign fast enough for it to be interesting and the in 4 or 5 years from now I will just declare that the voyage is technologically impossible and keep all the cash. Interesting way to make a few million....

"I felt… I was discouraged as a child [from becoming an astronaut] just because of how unbelievably competitive it is,” Hamm told Ars. “I’m a very intelligent person and I’m driven to try and achieve my dreams but, at the same time, I felt like it was an really unrealistic goal to try and pursue. As smart as I am, there's always plenty of people that are smarter.”

Seems like one of the biggest qualities in an astronaut is that they don't care about the odds or their chances, they just go out and get it. I believe that is referred to as "the right stuff."

the New York Times summed up the general feeling in a recent article that talked about the "significant skepticism" that Mars One "has raised in some quarters"

Heh, that's one way to put it. A bit more mild than I would put it, but I guess "significant skepticism" sums it up pretty well, since the NYT can't go full out and call it a damned scam without raising some serious libel issues.

But it is a scam. They might just be trying to raise awareness for a Mars mission, but given it's going to fail (and they have to know that), that seems extremely unlikely. Probably have the opposite effect, which is unfortunate. Not sure what the end-game is, yet, the few hundred thousand they've raised so far doesn't seem like enough for a money based scam, but I could be wrong.

Aside from the mechanics of actually going to Mars, forever, I think they're on to something. How much money do reality programs like American Idol or Survivor bring in? Now imagine that funneled into programs that allow us to inhabit space. Then again, I'm sure the budget for actually generating programming like Survivor is relatively small, so those behind the wheel would have to have some motivation to dump the profits into the program.

According to one article, American Idol brought in nearly $1B in ad revenue over fiscal 2009. That's 1/17th of NASA's 2014 budget. There's potential there, I think, if done right. Maybe throw this insane idea out the window, but create a program people will tune into, and put the proceeds into space travel. It might get us somewhere.

Surely, dying a frozen or fiery death is discouragement enough for me. To paraphrase what General Patton once said, "War is about killing your enemies for your country, not being the poor bastard that dies for his country." This is not war, but the sentiment still applies

Were I to colonize another planet...these are not the people I would want with me. Seriously, I'd want to be part of a team where I'm the weakest link, and everyone's way the hell smarter, more physically fit, better-trained, and coming from a background of far more relevant experience than I.

Once on Mars, assuming that they can sustain life for months or years, the next most important journey will be to come back to Earth, unless there is some sort of a death wish/living in a dome environment, reduced lifespan, total isolation appeal to it all.

An easier way to test that would be to apply to live on South Pole over winter, as a maintainance person, probably easier to get in, life expectation still reasonably high and a similar environment for 6-9 months only. See if you like it, next stop Mars, it will also most likely help on the application CV, proof that you can do isolation and that you like it.

As long as we don't send all our phone sanitizers & hair dressers, I'm OK with it.

As much as I think we need to get to Mars and establish a permanent presence (by which I mean a self-sufficient community, not a cemetery), I think this is going to end up ridiculed as a poorly executed failure which will hamper the efforts of serious scientific expeditions and colonization to get funding later.

But I'll volunteer, if I can be captain and spend the whole trip in the bathtub.

the New York Times summed up the general feeling in a recent article that talked about the "significant skepticism" that Mars One "has raised in some quarters"

Heh, that's one way to put it. A bit more mild than I would put it, but I guess "significant skepticism" sums it up pretty well, since the NYT can't go full out and call it a damned scam without raising some serious libel issues.

But it is a scam. They might just be trying to raise awareness for a Mars mission, but given it's going to fail (and they have to know that), that seems extremely unlikely. Probably have the opposite effect, which is unfortunate. Not sure what the end-game is, yet, the few hundred thousand they've raised so far doesn't seem like enough for a money based scam, but I could be wrong.

It "has" to fail? It probably will. But what if these folks actually do go to Mars and survive the landing and actually build a primitive settlement? Say they can't produce enough food and begin to slowly starve? Maybe there would be enough sympathy for their plight here on Earth that we send them supplies, maybe even on a regular basis. I guess what I am saying is that it might force us Earthlings to commit to colonization.

What I'm interested is what exactly the would-be astronauts are expecting to get out of going to Mars? You're single, flexible, and intelligent? Great; now why do you want get a one way ticket to a lifeless and inhabitable planet secluded from the vast majority of humanity and basic conveniences provided by society? Most people interested in such a scenario would be far better off camping out in Death Valley, the Sahara desert, or the antarctic.

It's probably safe to assume the vast majority of applicants aren't astronomers, geologists, etc. who can at least try do anything meaningful while on the planet, and who may do research on the planet to interest them and occupy time.

It "has" to fail? It probably will. But what if these folks actually do go to Mars and survive the landing and actually build a primitive settlement? Say they can't produce enough food and begin to slowly starve? Maybe there would be enough sympathy for their plight here on Earth that we send them supplies, maybe even on a regular basis. I guess what I am saying is that it might force us Earthlings to commit to colonization.

I always thought the first actual off-world colony would be based on a religious pilgrimage, not a group of nobodies that couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag. Lets just call it as it is: a chance to die on Mars for people that can barely handle living on this planet.

"I felt… I was discouraged as a child [from becoming an astronaut] just because of how unbelievably competitive it is,” Hamm told Ars. “I’m a very intelligent person and I’m driven to try and achieve my dreams but, at the same time, I felt like it was an really unrealistic goal to try and pursue. As smart as I am, there's always plenty of people that are smarter.”

Seems like one of the biggest qualities in an astronaut is that they don't care about the odds or their chances, they just go out and get it. I believe that is referred to as "the right stuff."

This reminds me of all the people that say "see, if you follow your dreams, you can make it" on these singing shows. even though everyone else was following their dreams, and that guy gets eliminated in the next round.

any time there are millions of people that want to do something, thousands that can, and hundreds that pursue a dozen spots, you'll need luck to get it.

all that said, trying to be an astronaut is fine because worst case, you don't make it and just have money and a career for trying. it's like trying the be the CEO of apple and ending up division manager. your gonna be ok.

It seems to me that this could be a HUGE scam. But at the same time governments don't seem to be that interested to colonize other planets. So if private companies can make it happen and fund all that through a TV show, then i suppose it's as valid as any other means.

They have approx 2 years of flight to get there, with all the physiological changes that it implies over time(weightlessness).

I hope they screen people psychologically, because a bunch of instable folks locked into a small habitat for two years is kind of scary, although, it could definitely make for a good show

An easier way to test that would be to apply to live on South Pole over winter ... a similar environment for 6-9 months only.

I wonder if the company is planning *that* as a reality show, claiming it's a preliminary step in their Mars plan in order to drum up publicity and attract a wider audience than reality shows usually do. In a sense, it would just be a variant on the reality shows that are slanted toward specific popular niches in society, just using "simulating Mars to pick candidates & prepare for living there" as the lure instead of hunting ghosts, getting married, or whatever.

It's not a ticket to mars like a ticket to a cruise ship. It's a 10 year training course, with skill specialisations. With training, and so on. Read their stuff, it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

But wow, these people want to make a Mars colony a reality....and you give them a thumbs down?

Whether its an odd-ball idea that is pure fantasy or the real thing, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are still people out there with the pioneer spirit. If it wasn't for them, where the heck would we be?

Only $6 billion? I read an opinion piece that speculated that NASA could fund an expedition to Mars for a price of about $800 billion. That's a difference of about 21 dB... either these people are very optimistic about the cost of their mission or the government is more inefficient than any of us imagined.

Whether its an odd-ball idea that is pure fantasy or the real thing, it doesn't matter. What matters is that there are still people out there with the pioneer spirit. If it wasn't for them, where the heck would we be?

Just my two-cents.

There's pioneer spirit, and then there's a lame attempt to attach yourself to a potentially lethal endeavor in which neither party has done the work required for success. Guess which one this is

Why does these people would have to be scientist to establish a colony? After all, what you want there is builders, people with engineering skills, mechanical skills, soldering skills, farmers, electrician, plumbers... Scientist could all do this, because they are people who are taught to learn, but far to be as efficient as a fully experienced worker. There's way more chance a first colony would survive with specialized worker than generic scientists. People keep referencing Roanoke, but if you go and read a bit, you'll see that most colonists sent there weren't specialized worker.

An easier way to test that would be to apply to live on South Pole over winter, as a maintainance person, probably easier to get in, life expectation still reasonably high and a similar environment for 6-9 months only. See if you like it, next stop Mars, it will also most likely help on the application CV, proof that you can do isolation and that you like it.

If you want that authentic Mars experience, you can get it now without leaving Earth.

All you need to do is spend months in bed so you lose plenty of bone and muscle mass, then you travel to the South Pole and suffocate yourself.

Only $6 billion? I read an opinion piece that speculated that NASA could fund an expedition to Mars for a price of about $800 billion. That's a difference of about 21 dB... either these people are very optimistic about the cost of their mission or the government is more inefficient than any of us imagined.

Yes, I am also skeptical of this estimate. $6 billion is not that much money; I think if it really cost that little NASA would already have gone to Mars.

(As a reference, the Hubble cost ~$2.5 billion and the James Webb telescope ~$8.85 billion. The international space station has cost ~$150 billion according to Google.) Then again Spirit+Opportunity cost $820 million and Curiosity cost only $2.5 billion, but I would still think that sending a manned mission with several people would cost at least an order of magnitude more with the extra space, supplies, and safety measures needed.

Only $6 billion? I read an opinion piece that speculated that NASA could fund an expedition to Mars for a price of about $800 billion. That's a difference of about 21 dB... either these people are very optimistic about the cost of their mission or the government is more inefficient than any of us imagined.

The other difference is that NASA will do everything in their power to make sure the voyage and the return go without any problem.

I wish good luck to the Darwin Award nominee the second something stop working has intended.

Anders' profile has since been tanked (vote wise) in the same manner that he was cheating to get to the top.

EDIT: a large portion of the applicants that are near the top got there by cheating the voting system. Pretty much anyone who has a vote count greater then their view count.

When I spoke with Mars One about the issue, they responded with:

Quote:

Hi Aaron,We understand your concern. Unfortunately now is [redacted for explaining how the cheating is accomplished]. However in the selection of the candidates we'll take that into account. At this stage popularity is important but not the only factor that matters.

It seems to me that this could be a HUGE scam. But at the same time governments don't seem to be that interested to colonize other planets. So if private companies can make it happen and fund all that through a TV show, then i suppose it's as valid as any other means.

They have approx 2 years of flight to get there, with all the physiological changes that it implies over time(weightlessness).

I hope they screen people psychologically, because a bunch of instable folks locked into a small habitat for two years is kind of scary, although, it could definitely make for a good show

Colonization will become a priority when conditions on earth start to get more and more inhospitable, but honestly when we seemingly can't adapt to a few celsius rise in global temperatures. I don't see how people ever think we'll be able to colonize another planet in the near future.

Not to say global warming isn't a problem, but it really puts things into perspective.

As long as we don't send all our phone sanitizers & hair dressers, I'm OK with it.

As much as I think we need to get to Mars and establish a permanent presence (by which I mean a self-sufficient community, not a cemetery), I think this is going to end up ridiculed as a poorly executed failure which will hamper the efforts of serious scientific expeditions and colonization to get funding later.

No one can get any funding now... 30k*~38 is just under a million dollars. That's more than any other Mars plan has raised.